Adoption creates permanent legal parenthood through a regulated process. ARG helps identify the domestic or international route and understand which birth-family relationships the decision changes.
Does living abroad make an adoption international even when the applicants and child are Bulgarian citizens? Families ask ARG this before committing to a placement or relying on a relative’s promise. Habitual residence, the proposed movement of the child and the intended legal relationship determine the route.
Through appropriately authorised Bulgarian lawyers, ARG can assist in the following situations.
It creates parental rights and duties through a distinct legal procedure rather than through informal care or private agreement.
Formal eligibility and financial resources do not replace the assessment of a particular child’s needs and prospective family environment.
The applicable administrative route must be established before treating a registration or approval as a step toward the judicial adoption decision.
Habitual residence, treaty applicability, recognition and lawful entry must be examined together with the adoption conditions.
Adoption creates a legal family relationship through a court decision, rather than recording a private agreement to care for somebody else's child. The governing framework is the Family Code (Семеен кодекс, СК), especially Articles 77 to 81 and 97. A restrained comparison is the legal parenthood created by adoption in England and Wales under section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Bulgaria's distinction between full and incomplete adoption nevertheless requires separate analysis. The applicant must establish the relevant statutory conditions, and the court must also find that this particular adoption serves this particular child's interests. The second inquiry is not exhausted by satisfying an age requirement or producing the necessary declarations.
The two forms differ in the legal family they create. Full adoption brings the child and the child’s descendants into the adopter’s wider kinship under Article 101 of СК. Incomplete adoption creates the relationship with the adopter but preserves specified origin relationships under Article 102. It is therefore misleading to describe the latter as a temporary or less serious commitment. Both involve legal parenthood. The relevant question is which relatives acquire or retain rights and duties, and whether the requested form is legally available in the circumstances rather than merely preferred by the adults.
Some cases permit no choice between the two forms. Full adoption is mandatory in the situations listed in Article 100(2), including unknown parents, prior consent to full adoption and the statutory placement cases under Article 93(2) and (3). Outside those situations, the form is determined by the persons whose consent is required under Article 89, as provided by Article 100(3). An application should identify both the requested form and the facts making that form legally available. A general statement that everyone wants the child to have a better future does not resolve a disagreement about whether the birth family relationship should be severed.
The distinction between overcoming consent and obtaining full adoption is decisive. Full adoption without parental consent cannot rest solely on Article 93(1), as the General Assembly of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation held in Interpretative Decision No 1/2015 of 14 November 2016 in interpretative case No 1/2015. The decision must be read with Article 100, which distinguishes the forms of adoption. Proving persistent neglect does not therefore entitle an applicant to choose the most extensive severance of the child's original legal ties. The requested legal effect must have its own statutory basis.
The child must be under eighteen when the application is submitted, as required by Article 77(1) of СК. An adopter must have legal capacity and must not have been deprived of parental rights under Article 78. These are conditions of eligibility, not matters that the parties can waive. The ordinary age difference is at least fifteen and no more than fifty years under Article 79(1). Where spouses adopt together, it is sufficient for one spouse to satisfy that age difference. Specific exceptions apply to adoption by a parent's spouse, grandparents and a relative in the third degree of the collateral line under Article 79(2). Accordingly, an older grandparent should not be rejected by applying the general maximum without examining the statutory exception, while an unrelated applicant cannot assume that affection alone removes it.
The family relationship between the applicant and child can also create a prohibition or a special route. Adoption between relatives in the direct line and between siblings is ordinarily prohibited, but the specific grandparent exceptions in Article 80 must be examined on their own terms. The conditions include the circumstances of the child's birth and whether a parent has died. Competing applications from grandparents require an assessment of the child's interests, not a mechanical preference for the wealthier household. Two people may adopt jointly only if they are spouses, and an existing adoption generally prevents a further adoption except in the cases specified by Article 81. An unmarried couple therefore cannot obtain joint adoptive parenthood merely by signing the same application.
Suitability is practical as well as formal. The court needs a credible account of how the child will receive care, education, emotional support and any necessary treatment. A modest income does not by itself establish inability to parent, just as substantial assets do not prove capacity to respond to trauma or disability. The child's existing attachments, expressed views and likely adjustment must be considered alongside the adults' circumstances. Relevant evidence can include the social report, medical information, direct observations of contact and testimony about established caregiving. The applicants should address a concrete concern, such as how work travel will affect daily care, instead of submitting general assurances that they love children.
Guardianship responds to a need for legal protection and representation without making the guardian a parent by adoption. The conditions for guardianship and curatorship in Article 153 of СК concern, among other situations, children whose parents are unknown, dead, fully incapacitated or deprived of parental rights. Appointment is handled by the guardianship authority under Article 154. These institutions are not alternative names for adoption. A guardian may perform important legal functions yet cannot rely on the appointment as a judgment establishing the family relationship and wider inheritance consequences of full adoption.
Likewise, an order allocating residence, contact or the exercise of parental rights organises existing parental responsibility. It does not replace a parent with the adult providing practical help. A stepparent who attends school meetings does not acquire the other parent’s legal status through repeated attendance. Existing care may supply valuable evidence of attachment and suitability, but an adoption still needs its own route, consents or statutory exceptions, assessment and judicial decision. Separating these questions helps a family pursue immediate lawful care arrangements without making a premature promise that permanent adoption is guaranteed.
The 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption applies within Article 2 when a child habitually resident in one Contracting State moves or is to move to another for a qualifying adoption by a person or spouses habitually resident there. It covers permanent parent-child relationships, not a holiday stay or ordinary guardianship. The required Article 17(c) agreements must be given before the child turns eighteen under Article 3. Treaty operation between the particular states and the relevant dates must be verified. Neither a Bulgarian passport nor an overseas postal address answers these conditions by itself.
Where the Hague Convention applies between the countries concerned, the state of origin must satisfy the safeguards in Article 4. These include adoptability, consideration of placement within the state of origin, properly informed consent and protection against consent induced by payment. The receiving state must establish the matters in Article 5, including the adopters' eligibility and suitability and the child's authorisation to enter and reside permanently. The two sets of responsibilities are complementary. A favourable home assessment abroad does not establish that a particular Bulgarian child is legally available for adoption, and a Bulgarian determination of adoptability does not establish immigration permission elsewhere.
The exchange of reports has substantive importance. The adopter report under Article 15 and the child report under Article 16 should allow the authorities to assess a real proposed family relationship. Medical information, care needs, background and the applicants' capacity to respond cannot be reduced to a marketing description of a child. Where a report reveals a disability or uncertain prognosis, the applicants need an informed understanding of treatment and support rather than an assurance that the problem will disappear after placement. The agreement required by Article 17 must precede the relevant placement steps. Transfer under Article 19 is conditioned on the safeguards being satisfied, so buying tickets does not create a right to move the child.
The adoption order establishes a legal parent and child relationship; it does not simply authorise residence with a caregiver. In full adoption the court orders a new birth record naming the adopter as parent under Article 101(2) of СК. The judgment’s form matters abroad as well. Recognition under Article 26 of the Hague Convention includes the adoptive relationship and parental responsibility, and includes termination of earlier parent-child ties only where the adoption has that effect in the state where it was made. Recognition therefore requires understanding the actual legal effect, rather than translating the word adoption and assuming every system gives it identical consequences.
The child's interests continue after the court order. Full adoption is subject to the three year monitoring period in Article 104, with social support available during and after the process. The monitoring requirement reflects the reality that adjustment, treatment and family relationships develop over time. Access to information about origins is also a distinct matter. Specified persons have a judicial route under the current Article 105, which must not be confused with undoing the adoption or acquiring an unrestricted right to contact birth relatives. Planning a durable adoption therefore includes lawful recognition, accurate civil status records, realistic support and respect for the child's future identity, rather than ending the family's preparation on the day the judgment is announced.
Incomplete adoption has specific consequences that cannot be reduced to preserving everything unchanged. The adopter receives parental rights and duties under Article 102(1) of СК. Birth parents owe maintenance if the adopter is unable to provide it, and they do not inherit from the adopted person under Article 102(2). In contrast, full adoption generally terminates origin-family rights and duties under Article 101(1), while biological marriage impediments remain. These distinctions matter where relatives expect continued parental decision-making or assume that retained kinship necessarily preserves every inheritance entitlement in both directions.
Stepparent adoption has its own important safeguard. The relationship with the parent married to the adopter and that parent's relatives is preserved under Article 103. A child adopted by a mother's spouse does not ordinarily lose the legal relationship with the mother merely because the adoption is full. The legal inquiry instead concerns the other parental line and the conditions for the proposed adoption. This is why the application should identify the existing parentage, marriage and requested form precisely. A family may also discover that adoption is not presently available because consent or another condition is missing. That does not authorise treating the stepparent as a legal parent for unrelated decisions in the meantime.
Tell us where you live, how your business works and what you want to change. We will help you identify the questions to resolve and the next steps to consider.
Information about origins has a separate route under Article 105 of the Family Code (Семеен кодекс, СК). Adopters, an adopted person aged eighteen or over, that person’s descendants and spouse may apply to the regional court that allowed the adoption. For comparison, section 60 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in England and Wales gives adopted adults specified information rights, including birth-record information subject to a possible exceptional court restriction; the Bulgarian disclosure route has its own applicants and safeguards. An application may clarify birth circumstances or medical history without seeking to terminate adoption. The applicant must distinguish missing identity information from a wish to compel reunion, which disclosure does not itself achieve.
The present law no longer makes access dependent on proving the former requirement of important circumstances. That change is explained in Order No 1774 of 3 April 2026, private civil case No 1112/2026, Third Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation. The lower courts had treated an adult adoptee's existing knowledge of birth parents' names as a reason to find no legal interest in the application. The Supreme Court quashed the procedural termination and returned the case for examination. The holding concerns access to the judicial procedure and the scope of a legally recognised interest, rather than an unconditional order to disclose every item in the file.
Civil status records establish age, parentage and marriage, which can determine eligibility and the required consents. The ordinary fifteen to fifty year age difference in Article 79(1) must be checked together with its exceptions. A stepparent or qualifying relative should prove the relationship giving rise to the exception, rather than ask for discretionary leniency that the statute does not describe. Where two applicants seek to adopt together, their marriage is relevant under Article 81. The child's age is assessed against the requirement in Article 77(1) at submission of the application. A missing or inconsistent birth record can therefore affect a substantive condition, not simply the spelling of the final judgment.
The legal status of any existing placement should be documented separately. A court ordered placement with relatives, an appointment as guardian and an ordinary foster arrangement are not interchangeable labels. The exceptions in Article 82 depend on the particular category. The social assessment remains necessary even where ordinary registration is not required. Current caregiving evidence should explain the child's routine, attachments, school experience and medical needs. Where a report is old, a significant later change may need to be addressed under Article 87 or in the court's child interest assessment. An assessment written before the applicants separated cannot be assumed to describe the household in which the child will actually live.
For overseas applicants, the suitability assessment and the child’s adoptability are complementary findings. The state of origin examines the child and necessary consents, while the receiving state determines the applicants’ eligibility and suitability and the child’s ability to enter and reside permanently under Articles 4 and 5 of the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. A favourable foreign home study does not make a particular Bulgarian child available for adoption. The report must describe the actual household, care capacity and relevant changes. Moving after assessment or concealing a separation can make an otherwise genuine document unreliable as evidence of the proposed placement.
The receiving state must be able to recognise the intended legal relationship. The prohibition in Article 111(2) is directed at an adoption that the receiving state will not recognise. It protects the child against being treated as adopted in Bulgaria but lacking the corresponding family status where the child will live. The assessment therefore needs a reliable account of recognition and the adopters' eligibility in that jurisdiction before the Bulgarian process is completed. A general statement from an intermediary that other families have adopted successfully is not a substitute for determining whether the present applicants and proposed adoption meet the receiving state's requirements.
A foreign adoption duly certified under Article 23 of the Hague Convention is recognised by operation of law in other Contracting States within the Convention’s scope. The certificate records when and by whom the Article 17(c) agreements were given. Refusal is confined by Article 24 to manifest incompatibility with public policy, taking the child’s best interests into account. A foreign judgment without that Convention basis requires examination of the applicable alternative recognition route. Translation or authentication alone cannot supply a missing legal basis, and recognition of parenthood is separate from citizenship or permission to cross a border.
Intermediation is regulated rather than left to unrestricted private negotiation. The Ministry of Justice is the Bulgarian central authority under Article 112, and organisations must hold the required authorisation under Article 116. The country and scope of that authorisation matter. The Convention also limits improper financial gain under Article 32 while allowing reasonable costs and professional fees. Payments should therefore be identifiable and connected to legitimate services, with no suggestion that money purchases consent or priority for a particular child. Early private contact outside the permitted circumstances can also conflict with Article 29. These rules protect the integrity of the placement and the family's ability to rely on the completed procedure.
Consent requires attention to identity, form, content and timing. The persons listed in Article 89 must be identified from the child's legal status, and any claimed exception must be explained. The declaration or court statement must correspond to the proposed form of adoption. A mother's consent must respect the minimum period after birth in Article 89(2), and a child who has reached fourteen gives consent personally before the court under Article 91(2). Where prior consent has been withdrawn, the record should establish the date and method of withdrawal and the stage reached under Article 92. A notarised signature does not by itself resolve a dispute about whether the correct person consented to the correct legal effect at a legally effective time.
Adults cannot buy consent, promise a particular child as though concluding a private transfer, or waive the child’s independent interests. The persons whose consent is necessary are determined by Article 89 of СК, not by whichever adults have negotiated. A mother cannot give the required consent earlier than thirty days after birth, and a child who has reached fourteen gives consent personally before the court under Article 91(2). A notarised declaration does not make coercion lawful or replace a missing person’s consent. If an exception is relied upon, its conditions must be proved before the competent court rather than manufactured through a family agreement.
If consent is said to be unnecessary, the evidence must establish the chosen statutory ground. Persistent absence of care and maintenance under Article 93(1) calls for a chronological account of both matters, including the parent's opportunities and actual conduct. The residential or foster placement grounds under Article 93(2) and (3) require the administrative placement date, requests for return or alternative placement, the reasons why those requests did or did not succeed and the relevant cooperation. A parent can answer with evidence of contact, support, justified obstacles or a suitable family alternative. The court should therefore receive the underlying records, not only an applicant's conclusion that the child has been abandoned.
The requested remedy must also fit the ground proved. The Supreme Court of Cassation's General Assembly of the Civil Chamber explained in Interpretative Decision No 1/2015 of 14 November 2016, interpretative case No 1/2015, that Article 93(1) alone does not permit full adoption without parental consent. The same decision recognises the admissibility of direct court filing in the exceptional cases under Article 82(2) and (3). These are separate propositions. One limits the substantive result; the other prevents a particular forwarding defect from barring examination. Neither turns an incomplete factual file into proof that the adoption is in the child's interests.
The competent court depends on the kind of application. Ordinary full adoption follows the regional directorate associated with matching under Article 96(1) of СК. The exceptional cases have the connecting rule in Article 96(2), and incomplete adoption follows Article 96(3). International applications forwarded after the required ministerial consent are heard by Sofia City Court under Article 118. These distinctions matter when a family has moved or when the child is placed in another district. Filing where travel is easiest does not establish jurisdiction. The application should explain the statutory route and include the facts supporting the chosen court's competence.
The hearing is a judicial examination of status and welfare, not a ceremonial confirmation of administrative approval. The regional court considers the application at a hearing closed to the public, obtains a social report, gathers evidence and hears the prosecutor's conclusion under Article 97(1). The statutory fourteen day framework for examination is not a promise that every complex adoption will be finally resolved within two weeks. Missing consent, disputed facts or an incomplete report may require procedural attention. The applicants should prepare to explain the proposed care arrangement in concrete terms and respond to the child's needs, rather than rely exclusively on counsel to describe their motivation.
Appeal requires prompt attention to the announced decision. The persons entitled to challenge and the exceptions are identified in Article 98(1), which provides a seven day period from announcement. A child who has reached fourteen may appeal personally. The appellate examination follows Article 98(2), and the appellate decision is final under that provision. An applicant should not assume that the ordinary time limit used in another kind of civil case applies. The first tasks after an adverse decision are to identify the precise reason for refusal, determine who has standing to appeal and distinguish an error in the legal test from a factual concern requiring a focused evidential response.
Implementation begins with the actual content and finality of the judgment. Full adoption results in a new birth record under Article 101(2), while the legal effects of incomplete adoption are governed differently by Article 102. The judgment is sent to the authorities specified in Article 97(3) after it enters into force. The family should check that the resulting civil status documents reflect the order accurately, particularly where names have different transliterations or foreign authorities require proof of the parent and child relationship. An administrative record cannot properly enlarge or reduce the status created by the court, so discrepancies should be addressed by reference to the judicial decision rather than by informal explanations to each institution.
For a child moving abroad, recognition and lawful entry remain separate matters. The receiving state's ability to recognise the Bulgarian adoption is a condition under Article 111(2). Where the 1993 Hague Convention applies, the agreements and permissions contemplated by Articles 5, 17 and 18 must be in place for the relevant stages, and transfer is subject to Article 19. A certificate under Article 23 supports the Convention's recognition mechanism, but does not itself decide nationality or replace every travel document. The practical sequence should therefore identify who issues each document, which decision it proves and whether the receiving authority requires a translation or another formal step within the applicable regime.
Compare the related procedures in this category, including their requirements and the stage at which you need them.
.svg)
.svg)